Chart #1
Chart #1 shows the history of M2 growth (plotted on a logarithmic y-axis so as to show constant rates of growth as straight lines). The huge bulge in M2 which began in Q2/20 was fueled by about $6 trillion in Covid "stimulus" checks which were effectively monetized (not borrowed, but printed) and largely sat in people's checking accounts for almost two years. (Prior to this, deficit spending by Treasury was routinely financed by selling bonds, which created no new money as a result.) The "bulge" in M2 rose to a high of $4.7 trillion in Dec. '21, and has now fallen by almost two thirds. This was the result of negative growth in M2 and ongoing growth in the economy.
Chart #2
Chart #2 shows the growth of currency in circulation. This is a fairly good measure of money demand, since no one holds onto currency without a reason to do so. Excess, or unwanted currency is easily returned to the banking system in exchange for interest-bearing deposits. This chart demonstrates the significant increase in money demand from 2020 through late 2021, a time when uncertainties were running rampant and it was difficult to spend money. Since early 2022 money demand by this measure has returned to "normal." Rising money demand kept the bulge in M2 from being inflationary, while declining money demand coincided with an increase in inflation. In short, for the past two years the increase in inflation that has proved so distressing was simply the result of unwanted money being spent: too much money chasing too few goods. Money demand has apparently returned to more normal levels now, so, with a lag, inflation is likely going to continue to decline.
Chart #3
Chart #3 is my definition of money demand: M2 divided by nominal GDP. This is best thought of as the percentage of total income (GDP) that the public chooses to hold in the form of readily spendable cash (M2). Here we see that money demand—after surging in the wake of the Covid panic—is rapidly returning to what might be termed normal.
Chart #4
Hi Scott, I’m curious - do you have an M2 chart going back to the 1970s?
ReplyDeleteWondering if M2 also caused the 1970s inflation (and if not; why)?
You can check the M2 data using the FRED data series. The CAGR for the 1970s (Jan 70-Dec 79) is 9.6%.
Delete1980s is 7.9%.
1960s is 7%.
1990s is 3.89%
2000s is 6.2% but skewed by the QE from 2008-
2010s is 6.1% with QE in the mix.
90s stand out as a good decade, wonder why.
I love your definition of money demand: M2 divided by nominal GDP. It's simple and easy to understand. Question - the rapid advance after 2010 - is that coincident with or caused by the Fed's shift to an abundant reserve model? Or is it the same thing?
ReplyDeleteScott, Do the Fed’s high short term interest rates create inflation pressure by causing the banks to pay higher than inflation interest on deposits? M2 looks pretty big and assuming that depositors are earning CPI+2% seems to increase cash available to spend,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if there's a good correlation between M2 and inflation. But based on theory, there's not. It goes back to George Garvey:
ReplyDeleteDeposit Velocity and Its Significance (stlouisfed.org)
“Obviously, velocity of total deposits, including time deposits, is considerably lower than that computed for demand deposits alone. The precise difference between the two sets of ratios would depend on the relative share of time deposits in the total as well as on the respective turnover rates of the two types of deposits.”
That's how you get Friedman's "long and variable lags".
No, monetary lags are mathematical constants, other things equal.
Scott Grannis' M2 ignores the fact that retail MMMFs are nonbanks.
Re "Do the Fed’s high short term interest rates create inflation pressure?"
ReplyDeleteInterest payments typically are not made with newly-minted money, so they do not expand the money supply nor are they inflationary.
tom, re rising money demand post-2010. Rising demand for money beginning in 2010 was very likely symptomatic of declining tolerance for risk, which in turn was sparked by the Great Recession of 2008-9. Simply put, the public sought the safety of cash. This also explains why the Fed was able to keep interest rates unusually low during that period.
ReplyDeleteFeds maintain current rate. Powell ruled out a potential hike.
ReplyDeleteSo is QE de facto back?
ReplyDeletehttps://ritholtz.com/2024/05/fed-cutting-oer/
ReplyDeleteWhy the Fed should already be cutting
This is absolutely priceless. And probably the most frightening clip you'll ever watch on the people in charge of the US economy.
ReplyDeleteJared Bernstein is literally the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, the main agency advising Biden on economic policy
https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1786272981058220187?s=46&t=RMHlxkwcr5wESIDLrpx9og
Jared Bernstein's educational background from Wikipedia (hint- he is not an economist by training-a lot of these people are hired for PR skills- or something like that)
ReplyDelete"Bernstein graduated with a bachelor's degree in music from the Manhattan School of Music where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. Throughout the Eighties Jared was a mainstay on the jazz scene in NYC.[citation needed]
He also earned a Master of Social Work from Hunter College as well as a DSW in social welfare from Columbia University's school of social work"
There's no single figure compiled which represents the value of money. Instead, there are many specialized types of indexes.
ReplyDeleteAnd applying a y-o-y rate-of-change doesn't reflex the proper change in any index.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are well. Could you update us with your thoughts?